Jupyter and Galaxy: Easing entry barriers into complex data analyses for biomedical researchers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gruning BA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5444614 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Jupyter and Galaxy: Easing entry barriers into complex data analyses for biomedical researchers.
Grüning Björn A BA Rasche Eric E Rebolledo-Jaramillo Boris B Eberhard Carl C Houwaart Torsten T Chilton John J Coraor Nate N Backofen Rolf R Taylor James J Nekrutenko Anton A
PLoS computational biology 20170525 5
What does it take to convert a heap of sequencing data into a publishable result? First, common tools are employed to reduce primary data (sequencing reads) to a form suitable for further analyses (i.e., the list of variable sites). The subsequent exploratory stage is much more ad hoc and requires the development of custom scripts and pipelines, making it problematic for biomedical researchers. Here, we describe a hybrid platform combining common analysis pathways with the ability to explore dat ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThe research investigated topic priorities for data literacy training for biomedical researchers and staff.MethodsAn electronic survey was used to assess researchers' level of knowledge related to data literacy skills and the relevance of these skills to their work.ResultsMost respondents did not have any formal training in data literacy. Respondents considered most tasks highly relevant to their work but rated their expertise in tasks lower.ConclusionAmong this group, researchers have diverse data literacy training needs. Librarians' expertise makes them well suited to provide such training.
| S-EPMC4722643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Galaxy (https://galaxyproject.org) is a web-based computational workbench used by tens of thousands of scientists across the world to analyze large biomedical datasets. Since 2005, the Galaxy project has fostered a global community focused on achieving accessible, reproducible, and collaborative research. Together, this community develops the Galaxy software framework, integrates analysis tools and visualizations into the framework, runs public servers that make Galaxy available via a web browser, performs and publishes analyses using Galaxy, leads bioinformatics workshops that introduce and use Galaxy, and develops interactive training materials for Galaxy. Over the last two years, all aspects of the Galaxy project have grown: code contributions, tools integrated, users, and training materials. Key advances in Galaxy's user interface include enhancements for analyzing large dataset collections as well as interactive tools for exploratory data analysis. Extensions to Galaxy's framework include support for federated identity and access management and increased ability to distribute analysis jobs to remote resources. New community resources include large public servers in Europe and Australia, an increasing number of regional and local Galaxy communities, and substantial growth in the Galaxy Training Network.
| S-EPMC7319590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Galaxy (homepage: https://galaxyproject.org, main public server: https://usegalaxy.org) is a web-based scientific analysis platform used by tens of thousands of scientists across the world to analyze large biomedical datasets such as those found in genomics, proteomics, metabolomics and imaging. Started in 2005, Galaxy continues to focus on three key challenges of data-driven biomedical science: making analyses accessible to all researchers, ensuring analyses are completely reproducible, and making it simple to communicate analyses so that they can be reused and extended. During the last two years, the Galaxy team and the open-source community around Galaxy have made substantial improvements to Galaxy's core framework, user interface, tools, and training materials. Framework and user interface improvements now enable Galaxy to be used for analyzing tens of thousands of datasets, and >5500 tools are now available from the Galaxy ToolShed. The Galaxy community has led an effort to create numerous high-quality tutorials focused on common types of genomic analyses. The Galaxy developer and user communities continue to grow and be integral to Galaxy's development. The number of Galaxy public servers, developers contributing to the Galaxy framework and its tools, and users of the main Galaxy server have all increased substantially.
| S-EPMC6030816 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundJupyter notebooks facilitate the bundling of executable code with its documentation and output in one interactive environment, and they represent a popular mechanism to document and share computational workflows, including for research publications. The reproducibility of computational aspects of research is a key component of scientific reproducibility but has not yet been assessed at scale for Jupyter notebooks associated with biomedical publications.ApproachWe address computational reproducibility at 2 levels: (i) using fully automated workflows, we analyzed the computational reproducibility of Jupyter notebooks associated with publications indexed in the biomedical literature repository PubMed Central. We identified such notebooks by mining the article's full text, trying to locate them on GitHub, and attempting to rerun them in an environment as close to the original as possible. We documented reproduction success and exceptions and explored relationships between notebook reproducibility and variables related to the notebooks or publications. (ii) This study represents a reproducibility attempt in and of itself, using essentially the same methodology twice on PubMed Central over the course of 2 years, during which the corpus of Jupyter notebooks from articles indexed in PubMed Central has grown in a highly dynamic fashion.ResultsOut of 27,271 Jupyter notebooks from 2,660 GitHub repositories associated with 3,467 publications, 22,578 notebooks were written in Python, including 15,817 that had their dependencies declared in standard requirement files and that we attempted to rerun automatically. For 10,388 of these, all declared dependencies could be installed successfully, and we reran them to assess reproducibility. Of these, 1,203 notebooks ran through without any errors, including 879 that produced results identical to those reported in the original notebook and 324 for which our results differed from the originally reported ones. Running the other notebooks resulted in exceptions.ConclusionsWe zoom in on common problems and practices, highlight trends, and discuss potential improvements to Jupyter-related workflows associated with biomedical publications.
| S-EPMC10783158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh-throughput technologies are rapidly generating large amounts of diverse omics data. Although this offers a great opportunity, it also poses great challenges as data analysis becomes more complex. The purpose of this study was to identify the main challenges researchers face in analyzing data, and how academic libraries can support them in this endeavor.MethodsA multimodal needs assessment analysis combined an online survey sent to 860 Yale-affiliated researchers (176 responded) and 15 in-depth one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo 10 software according to the thematic analysis approach.ResultsThe survey response rate was 20%. Most respondents (78%) identified lack of adequate data analysis training (e.g., R, Python) as a main challenge, in addition to not having the proper database or software (54%) to expedite analysis. Two main themes emerged from the interviews: personnel and training needs. Researchers feel they could improve data analyses practices by having better access to the appropriate bioinformatics expertise, and/or training in data analyses tools. They also reported lack of time to acquire expertise in using bioinformatics tools and poor understanding of the resources available to facilitate analysis.ConclusionsThe main challenges identified by our study are: lack of adequate training for data analysis (including need to learn scripting language), need for more personnel at the University to provide data analysis and training, and inadequate communication between bioinformaticians and researchers. The authors identified the positive impact of medical and/or science libraries by establishing bioinformatics support to researchers.
| S-EPMC6138043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The worldwide adoption of electronic health records (EHR) promises to accelerate clinical research, which lies at the heart of medical advances. However, the interrogation of such Big Data by clinical researchers can be laborious and error-prone, involving iterative and ineffective communication of data requests to data analysts. Research on this communication process is rare. There also exists no contemporary system that offers intelligent solutions to assist clinical researchers in their quest for clinical data. In this article, we first provide a detailed characterization of the challenges encountered in this communication space. Second, we identify promising synergies between fields studying human-to-human and human-machine communication that can shed light on biomedical data query mediation. We propose a mixed-initiative dialog-based approach to support autonomous clinical data access and recommend needed technology development and communication study for accelerating clinical research.
| S-EPMC5875984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As publishing is essential but competitive for researchers, difficulties in writing and submitting medical articles to biomedical journals are disabling. The DIAzePAM (Difficultés des Auteurs à la Publication d'Articles Médicaux) survey aimed to assess the difficulties experienced by researchers in the AP-HP (Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, i.e., Paris Hospitals Board, France), the largest public health institution in Europe, when preparing articles for biomedical journals. The survey also aimed to assess researchers' satisfaction and perceived needs.A 39-item electronic questionnaire based on qualitative interviews was addressed by e-mail to all researchers registered in the AP-HP SIGAPS (Système d'Interrogation, de Gestion et d'Analyse des Publications Scientifiques) bibliometric database.Between 28 May and 15 June 2015, 7766 researchers should have received and read the e-mail, and 1191 anonymously completed the questionnaire (<45 years of age: 63%; women: 55%; physician: 81%; with PhD or Habilitation à Diriger des recherches--accreditation to direct research--: 45%). 94% of respondents had published at least one article in the previous 2 years. 76% of respondents felt they were not publishing enough, mainly because of lack of time to write (79%) or submit (27%), limited skills in English (40%) or in writing (32%), and difficulty in starting writing (35%). 87% of respondents would accept technical support, especially in English reediting (79%), critical reediting (63%), formatting (52%), and/or writing (41%), to save time (92%) and increase high-impact-factor journal submission and acceptance (75%). 79% of respondents would appreciate funding support for their future publications, for English reediting (56%), medical writing (21%), or publication (38%) fees. They considered that this funding support could be covered by AP-HP (73%) and/or by the added financial value obtained by their department from previous publications (56%).The DIAzePAM survey highlights difficulties experienced by researchers preparing articles for biomedical journals, and details room for improvement.
| S-EPMC5504731 | biostudies-other
Project description:Qualitative health data are rarely shared in the United States (U.S.). This is unfortunate because gathering qualitative data is labor and time-intensive, and data sharing enables secondary research, training, and transparency. A new U.S. federal policy mandates data sharing by 2023, and is agnostic to data type. We surveyed U.S. qualitative researchers (N = 425) on the barriers and facilitators of sharing qualitative health or sensitive research data. Most researchers (96%) have never shared qualitative data in a repository. Primary concerns were lack of participant permission to share data, data sensitivity, and breaching trust. Researcher willingness to share would increase if participants agreed and if sharing increased the societal impact of their research. Key resources to increase willingness to share were funding, guidance, and de-identification assistance. Public health and biomedical researchers were most willing to share. Qualitative researchers need to prepare for this new reality as sharing qualitative data requires unique considerations.
| S-EPMC8719660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:As computer programming becomes increasingly important in the biomedical sciences and more libraries offer programming classes, it is crucial for librarians to understand how researchers use programming in their work. The goal of this study was to understand why biomedical researchers who enrolled in a library-sponsored workshop wanted to learn to program in R and Python. Methods:Semi-structured in-depth interviews were performed with fourteen researchers registered for beginning R and Python programming workshops at the University of California, San Francisco Library. A thematic analysis approach was used to extract the top reasons that researchers learned to program. Results:Four major themes emerged from the interviews. Researchers wanted to learn R and Python programming in order to perform their data analysis independently, to be an informed collaborator, to engage with new forms of big data research, and to have more flexibility in the tools that they used for their research. Conclusions:Librarians designing programming workshops should remember that most researchers are hoping to apply their new skills to a specific research task such as data cleaning, data analysis, and statistics and that language preferences can vary based on research community as well as personal preferences. Understanding the programming goals of researchers will make it easier for librarians to partner effectively and offer services that are critically needed in the biomedical community.
| S-EPMC6920002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:BRIGHTLIGHT is a national evaluation of cancer services for young people aged 13-24?years in England. It is a mixed methods study with six interlinked studies aiming to answer the question: do specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults add value? http://www.brightlightstudy.com/. Young people have been integral to study development and management, working as co-researchers, consultants and collaborators throughout. We aimed to share results in a way that was meaningful to young people, the public, and multidisciplinary professionals. This paper reports the development of 'There is a Light: BRIGHTLIGHT', a theatrical interpretation of study results by young people, and offers insight into the impact on the cast, researchers and audiences. Methods:The BRIGHTLIGHT team collaborated with Contact Young Company, a youth theatre group in Manchester. Twenty members of Contact Young Company and four young people with cancer worked together over an eight-week period during which BRIGHTLIGHT results were shared along with explanations of cancer, healthcare policy and models of care in interactive workshops. Through their interpretation, the cast developed the script for the performance. The impact of the process and performance on the cast was evaluated through video diaries. The research team completed reflective diaries and audiences completed a survey. Results:'There is a Light' contained five acts and lasted just over an hour. It played 11 performances in six cities in the United Kingdom, to approximately 1377 people. After nine performances, a 30-min talk-back between members of the cast, creative team, an expert healthcare professional, and the audience was conducted, which was attended by at least half the audience. Analysis of cast diaries identified six themes: initial anxieties; personal development; connections; cancer in young people; personal impact; interacting with professionals. The cast developed strong trusting relationships with the team. Professionals stated they felt part of the process rather than sitting on the periphery sharing results. Both professional and lay audiences described the performance as meaningful and understandable. Feedback was particularly positive from those who had experienced cancer themselves. Conclusions:Using theatre to present research enabled BRIGHTLIGHT results to be accessible to a larger, more diverse audience.
| S-EPMC7418195 | biostudies-literature